


Art/life

by extremesoft



Category: Formula 1 RPF, Motorsport RPF
Genre: Art, Gen, Implied Relationships, M/M, No Plot/Plotless, but not really meant as such, can be read as a painter/artist AU, rather just a collection of metaphors in mock-academic style, woohoo~
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-02-16
Updated: 2020-02-16
Packaged: 2021-03-12 18:30:28
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,982
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/22757032
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/extremesoft/pseuds/extremesoft
Summary: An incomplete catalogue raisonné of the works of Charles Leclerc -alternatively:the artist wilfully denies, for reasons left unknown, both himself and “we the audience” the chance to look either himself or his subjects in the eye.
Relationships: Charles Leclerc/Daniel Ricciardo, Charles Leclerc/Max Verstappen, Daniel Ricciardo/Max Verstappen (implied), Lewis Hamilton/Charles Leclerc, Pierre Gasly/Charles Leclerc
Comments: 23
Kudos: 23





	Art/life

**Author's Note:**

> Right, so. Explanations. It's not often I hop on board the "Charles Leclerc is a sad ho" bandwagon, but when I do, it seems to be with some seriously unusual dribble indeed..? I feel like this is the most insane work I have ever written and it's not even an AU or questionable kink porn (I'll get back to that next), but, uh, it just. Fell out of me like this. :')
> 
> So, this is the illicit lovechild of my fondness of classical/visual art (suffering from my incompetence to realise it through pretty much nothing but pencil sketches of faces) and my passion to torture myself through writing flowery - though in this case also faux-academic - English. The aim is, in short, to present Charles' relationships as these paintings and analyse them accordingly. Ta-dah. Very much inspired by the oeuvres of both Leonardo da Vinci and singlemalter (above all _Multilinguals and the depth of "I love you" across languages_), and I was ultimately pushed into the pitfall of this lunacy by a catalogue raisonné of mr. da Vinci I got myself from the land of Ferrari. Now, I think you can grasp the concept of a catalogue raisonné from the text without me explaining it more here, but I have taken liberties with noting the measurements of the works, the used techniques and the names of the housing places. All necessary translations (namely the museum names in French) can be found in the footnotes, as well as some more info.
> 
> And while I'm blathering more than you can read already, piles of thanks follow because this is not of me solely: to mr. Leonardo DiCa- I mean da Vinci for having existed and painted (despite having been notoriously famous for procrastinating), and singlemalter, for not only being a marvelous writer inspiring me to come up with this crap but also kindly letting me borrow both the name _Sestet_ from their drabble of the same name and partly the overall formatting of the aforementioned _Multilinguals_. Thank you so much once again!
> 
> Oh dear. Like I said to my biggest but certainly not baddest motivator (please duly note the Star Wars pun) (God, I'm such a hideous nerd), "this is the most outlandish bullshit I've ever created, but -- it's my bullshit, so". This might not tick everyone's every box, but then again, does anything really - like I always say, I just sincerely hope you enjoy reading this, whoever you might be who ends up doing so; and let me know in any way if you do! ❤️❤️
> 
> \--  


**I  
Portrait of an Unknown Man  
** _c. 2018-2019_  
_Copper and blue, 177 cm, 70 kg  
Rouen, Le Musée de L'innocence, Inv. 7296_

Owing to the inevitable test of time as well as torrential changes in its housing circumstances, the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ has suffered extensive damage to both its surface and the canvas and can only be described to be in moderately frail condition at the present moment. Whether the artist’s own intent is to fully salvage the painting remains unclear, and only slight improvements to the work have been undertaken by the time of the publication of this edition of the catalogue raisonné. The identity of the sc. “unknown man” is in fact an undisclosed secret to most of those familiar with Leclerc’s works, and the amount of theories as for why the artist has chosen not to name the work after the model - often as it is the case in portraiture - is inevitably substantial (for further discussion, see Cat. II). The artist has never cleared the matter further himself, however, and therefore most studies carried out pertaining Leclerc’s work as well as personal life only refer to him as “P”, mostly perhaps out of respect for the painter and his artistic views. 

One of Leclerc’s early works, the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ introduces to the viewer a seemingly gleeful young man, most likely around his twenty years, laid on a sunbed and surrounded by what is for a Leclerc painting a strikingly bright-coloured, simplistic landscape. It is worth noting in this context that the evolution Leclerc’s use of colours in his art go through is nowhere more visible than in the comparison between the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ and his later works, such as the _Enemy_ (Cat. III), and it has often been suggested that the gradual dilution of his palette is directly connected with the distinguishable changes in the artist’s person and character during the brief time he spent developing his body of work. The overall atmosphere of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ can still be described as relaxed, however, even if the pose chosen for the model is relatively stagnant. The background, despite the vivid colours Leclerc has chosen to use in painting both the sky and the ocean, is void of elaborate details apart from the plate of fruits next to “P”. More than the surrounding details Leclerc has clearly put his focus on his model’s face, and indeed he seems to have gone through venerable effort to make the portrait that of youthfulness and joy, even rebelliousness. The artist’s noteworthy decision to cover the eyes of his model with a pair of simple sunglasses also contributes to this interpretation, for they can be viewed as a playful protest against the most classical traditions of portraiture as they boldly hide what many have throughout history considered to be the very windows to a person’s soul.

The carefree ambience conveyed by the portrait is further heightened by the bright colours of the background and the aforementioned fruits, and the fruits have often either been interpreted as a symbol of the sweetness of youth, or young love, or parallelized with the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve eat - against God's command - in the Garden of Eden. This latter, biblical explanation for the presence of the fruits heavily undermines the seemingly mellow atmosphere, however, turning it into something almost completely opposite with the unmistakable allusion to the ubiquity of sin, the thus implied licentiousness enhanced by the subject being indeed pictured mischievously biting into a strawberry. The undeniably erotic nuances of the painting can hence be given multiple meanings depending on whether the viewer sees the portrait as a joyous manifest of affection or whether it is in fact a penance, the artist acknowledging the sinful nature of his connections with the “unknown man” and injecting a subtle confession into the design. 

The _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ is, interestingly, the last of Leclerc’s works where the artist has not included himself in the final composition. Ever since painting the _Portrait of a Champion_ (Cat. II), it has been, to some extent, a signature of Leclerc’s to inject himself into the design along with his subject. Although self-portraiture has been emblematic for painters for centuries and thus can certainly not be called a novelty, this trademark praxis of Leclerc’s is highly uncommon for commission artists, who primarily tailor their work according to their patron’s or employer’s wishes, and has given datum to a multitude of theories as for the reasons behind the recurring self-replication. The arguments have varied from Leclerc simply having a “overly heightened sense of ego, to the point where his audacious self-indulgence becomes one with his art and indeed lamentably taints it by making his vision of what he is asked to reproduce still, first and foremost, only a vision of himself” (Tatu, 2019) to more in-depth analyses of how the paintings each time reflect the relations between the artist and the sitter and thus offer not only a chance to glimpse the surface but also delve deep into the study of the circumstances from which the works have stemmed and in which they have been produced (see esp. Cat. IV). 

Against the background discussed above, in the case of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ Leclerc’s focus can be considered to still have been fully on his model, and this sense of devotion is further enhanced by the front angle from which he is pictured. In spite of the sunglasses he is portrayed to be wearing, “P” can be seen looking directly at the artist, and “through the portrait, we the audience return his carefree gaze alongside his immortaliser” (Hill, 2019). The _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ is hitherto the last of his works Leclerc has rendered such a direct eye contact between himself and his model in, and although the delicacy of the matter has partly prevented more in-depth study, the development has been largely credited to the recorded changes in the artist’s disposition. Despite the eye contact between himself and the model still being a clear fixation point in the _Portrait of a Champion_ as well, the height imbalance Leclerc has created betwixt the two men there already disjoints the directness of it, and in the _Enemy_ (Cat. III) and onwards the artist wilfully denies, for reasons left unknown, both himself and “we the audience” the chance to look either himself or his subjects in the eye. 

  
\--  


**II  
Portrait of a Champion (Sestet)  
** _2019_  
_Hilfiger on tattoos, 174 cm, 68 kg  
Monaco, La Galerie de Damnation à la Mode, Inv. 7185 _

The _Portrait of a Champion_, also referred to as _Sestet_ in a growing number of publications, continues to hold its quite exceptional status not only among Leclerc’s works but as a work of art in general, as the artist is known to have revisited the painting himself several times after its announced completion - even while simultaneously working on and finishing other commissions. However uncommon this practice might be for commission artists, it does result in the painting being in notably sound condition, although the recurring alterations have inevitably marred the canvas (mainly around the center of the portrait) and furthermore complicated studying the piece by obscuring the limits between the completed, “original” work and a work still in progress. The reasons behind the constant revising remain unknown, and neither scholars nor Leclerc himself have presented explanations as for whether the incessant retouches, regardless of their magnitude, result from particular affection to the work or - as quite an opposing motive - persistent dissatisfaction with it. 

As is the case with the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ (Cat. I), Leclerc has refrained from naming the portrait after the sitter despite the identity of the model being largely known, and has since _Sestet_ clearly abandoned all naming conventions of portraiture. The artist not using the given names of the individuals he paints but rather reducing them to mere epithets in the titles of the portraits created of them indeed leaves room for a wide scale of interpretations of both the works and the chosen titles. As noted in the description of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_, Leclerc has taken noteworthy care in rendering not only the face but also the amicable temper of “P”, yet has still chosen to conspicuously call him “unknown” and thus - rather crudely expressed - condemn him to oblivion despite this strongly personal approach. The original title of the _Portrait of a Champion_ can, against that backdrop, be considered as almost the opposite of that of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_. It could be said, from a strictly interpretive viewpoint, that the picture of the “champion” itself does not convey as much personality as that of the “unknown man” and hence may seen to be lacking similar emotivity. The words “portrait of a champion” therefore suddenly gain unexpected significance as carriers of meaning. They elevate the sitter to the échelon of champions and thus grant him an almost mythical status, and even more than the painting itself, the chosen epithet has been regarded in numerous interpretations as an expression of deep admiration, or even “worship of a superhuman individual” (Walker, 2019). 

Although the ambiance _Sestet_ (referred to as the _Portrait of a Champion_ for clarity in other parts of this catalogue raisonné) conveys can justly be described as more subdued as that of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_, it is still none the less vivid. Both Leclerc himself and the model are portrayed in the picture, as has been the case in Leclerc’s works since (see Cat. I for further discussion). The admiration Leclerc can be assumed to hold for the “champion” is not present only in the original titling of the work - although he has painted himself and the model to face each other in straight eye contact and furthermore made careful play with a sense of equality between the two by inserting a bottle of champagne in his hand similar to the one the “champion” is holding, Leclerc is positioned lower in the constellation than his contemporary and is thus gazing up at him, with what can be considered a rather rapt facial expression. To counter this evident display of his own enthusiasm, Leclerc has made the “champion” a more serene figure, looking down upon Leclerc quite sternly but also with notable keenness.

The difference between Leclerc’s youthful ardour and the rank of an honorable victor the model is given is further underlined by both the choices of colour for the clothes worn by the two men and headgear, or the lack of it. The fiercely red uniform Leclerc is seen wearing in the picture creates the impression of daring ambitiousness, while the cap on his head serves as a reminder of his still very young age at the time. The sitter, however, is portrayed wearing pure white and, as Walker (2019) has worded in his somewhat poetic study, “crowned by naught but his own braided hair”. As a result, the appearance of the “champion” also serves, in its tranquility, to accentuate the mythical status already awarded to him in the original title of the work, being in some sources described as almost “divine” (e.g. Pássaro, 2019). The viewpoint of Leclerc not only replicating the outward appearances of his sitters - and himself - but also his conceptions of them is handled further in Cat. III and Cat. IV, but _Sestet_ is the first of his paintings where this approach is fully on display, if still not as openly as in his later works; and where the _Enemy_ (Cat. III) is, for example, often considered a display of contempt, _Sestet_ is unanimously seen throughout the field as a visual form of praise, or even a subdued utterance of infatuation. 

  
\--  


**III  
Enemy  
** _2019_  
_Ice and flame on rage, 180 cm, 67 kg  
Monaco, La Forteresse de la Rivalité, Inv. 30997 _

A more recently disclosed work, the _Enemy_ has stayed under intense observation ever since it became known that Leclerc had undertaken new work shortly before the announced completion of the _Portrait of a Champion_ (Cat. II). Despite his still relatively small-scaled oeuvre, Leclerc had already started to gain reputation among his contemporaries by the time, though not always from the more positive end of the scope; while Leclerc’s skill have quite unanimously been praised throughout the field, both his methods of working and his temper have been described to have grown increasingly erratic while nearing and particularly after completing (officially, see Cat. II for further discussion) the _Portrait of a Champion_. Nowhere has the evolution of both been under greater speculation than in the various explorations of the _Enemy_, where the artist has repeatedly been stated to have had to abandon the piece earlier than intended due to constant disagreements between the sitter and himself, which seem to have irredeemably escalated after the unveiling of the _Smiling Man_ (Cat. IV). The connection between the rift and the artwork seems unusual and remains yet to be clarified further, although numerous theories pertaining the true nature and complexity of the relationships not only between Leclerc and his sitters but also between the sc. “enemy” and the “smiling man” themselves have since emerged. 

The newness of the _Enemy_ allows for the painting being in good overall condition, although the canvas in the bottom right corner has inexplicably suffered light damage resembling grazing, which has also caused fissures to eventually form in the paint covering it as the layers of it have dried and inevitably shrunk over time. Interestingly enough, the bottom right corner, as well as almost the whole of the right half of the painting, is where Leclerc has famously placed himself in the ultimate design beside his model. The marring of the canvas as well as the conspicuously smudged final rendering of himself have sparked speculations about whether it was Leclerc’s original intention to include himself in the composition, which has become a quintessential element in his works (see Cat. I) and thus piqued debate about whether his art can longer be called portraiture. Indeed there exists substantial evidence to prove that Leclerc did not originally plan on added self-portraiture in the case of the _Enemy_. Careful study of the painting and its materials has revealed that the layers of paint on the bottom right corner and the right edge are notably fresher than the ones found elsewhere in the piece, indicating Leclerc having drastically - and hastily - altered the composition after having drifted into quarrel and later parted from his model. It has not been customary for Leclerc to sketch his works in great detail, but what has been accomplished in the work to reveal the underdrawing of the _Enemy_ also suggests it only includes the model and that Leclerc has chosen to render himself beside him after already having nearly completed the work otherwise. 

Both the added self-portrait as well as the given title are clearly chosen as means of impregnating the work with meaning before its abandonment, since the appearance of the “enemy” itself is rendered in “a surprisingly clement manner for a character later reduced to a mere antagonist in the artist’s own story by the title given to the painting and thus to him” (Hill, 2019). This “antagonist in the artist’s own story” is portrayed with his head held high and a relatively light-hearted, if nonetheless slightly stoic, expression on his face and eyes aimed somewhere beyond the right edge of the painting. The image of the commissioner is in itself in fact quite conventional, even “harmless” (Hill, 2019), the static posture in particular reminiscent of the classical Flemish style. The late adding of the signature-like self-portrait thus, in the words of Pássaro (2019), “serves to turn the work into a render of neither the subject nor the artist but rather the labyrinthine and increasingly tainted relations between them.” 

The angle of Leclerc using his works to explore his own views of his subjects rather than simply capture their outer appearance is briefly touched in the discussion of the _Portrait of an Unknown Man_ (Cat. I), and it could not be clearer that this is also the ultimate meaning of the _Enemy_ as a whole - and also that the view in this case is rather scornful. Leclerc has chosen to insert himself into the painting nowhere else than partly in front of the actual subject, in equal height, further enhancing the impudent impression with his right hand raised in deflection and his face turning away from the “enemy”. Moreover, as indicated in Cat. I, from the _Enemy_ onwards Leclerc not only makes it impossible for the viewers of his paintings to look his subjects in the eye, but is also clearly unwilling to do that himself, and in this case clearly uses his self-portrait not only as a signature and watermark but also a forceful statement. Not much light has been shed on the disputes between the artist and his sitter(s), but Leclerc’s painting have been widely used as pathways into exploring his private life as well as mental state, and in these psychologically accentuated analyses the _Enemy_ has been popularly regarded as almost an open declaration of war, with the atmosphere it carries being generally considered that of animosity despite the aforementioned “surprisingly clement” rendering of the sitter. 

  
\--  


**IV  
Smiling Man  
** _2019_  
_Confusion and blundering, 178 cm, 66 kg  
Perth, The Dissatisfaction Exhibition, Inv. 1789 _

The position of the _Smiling Man_ in Leclerc’s oeuvre has been repeatedly brought under scrutiny, and in some studies it has even been questioned whether the piece is from Leclerc’s own hand. It was reported at the time that Leclerc began painting the _Smiling Man_ with passion but also abandoned the work with urgency not long after, and the meticulousness the artist has shown with his earlier works, especially the famously retouched _Portrait of a Champion_ (Cat. II), has been used as proof to theories according to which the _Smiling Man_ is wrongly credited to the artist. More than enough evidence exists in the painting itself to annul these claims, however, although the amount of documentation of the creation process of the _Smiling Man_ is scarce and mainly leans on chunks of sententious correspondence disclosed by the artist himself in addition to a small number of sketches. The materials as well as the distinguishing, sharp brush techniques used also point very strongly to Leclerc, as does the loosely executed underdrawing, faithful to Leclerc’s ambitious style. 

The controversy surrounding the _Smiling Man_ does not limit to only the question of its true origins. As mentioned previously, Leclerc is said to have been forced to abandon his work with haste after recurring conflicts between him and his sitters (see also Cat. III); and while it is not uncommon for painters to unveil unfinished works, or for these works to be treated as equivalents to other parts of an artist’s oeuvre, the _Smiling Man_ caused an uproar at the time of its revealing since the artist had hitherto visibly taken more time and care to render his own signature-like self-portrait rather than that of the actual subject. Ever since the appearance of the _Portrait of a Champion_, Leclerc had already been accused of egotism in numerous articles (see e.g. Tatu, 2019), and both the _Enemy_ (Cat. III) and the _Smiling Man_ further fueled these accusations as they were revealed, both seemingly used as means for the artist to present not only his subjects but also himself and his own conceptions of them. In some publications, abandoning and revealing the _Smiling Man_ in the state it was left in was seen as almost an insult to the model, the painter “clearly having not bothered with his model - or, indeed, any proper portraiture - at all any longer, only focusing on presenting to us his own mirror image the best way he can” (Neuville, 2019). This quite scalding viewpoint has been countered, however, with more understanding interpretations as well. Zöllner (2019), for example, considers in their article the possibility that the _Smiling Man_ is in its seemingly unfinished state in fact a very _finished_ portrait of the rumoured relationship between the artist and the model and thus delves deeper than the “proper portraiture” demanded by Neuville. While the true nature of this allegedly troubled relationship has remained a secret - apart from the aforementioned disclosed correspondence -, Zöllner suggests that the painting in fact renders reality more accurately than what the mere surface implies, and that in the “smiling man” the artist “veritably sees something he started but could never quite bring himself to finish - an elusive ideal, impossible to seize - and thus has made the painting a perfect, complete replica of something destined to stay incomplete”. 

Since the _Smiling Man_ is made public but not officially completed, technical research into it has thus far stayed careful, lest the artist should decide to continue with the work, and only the most acute analyses to confirm the origins and authenticity of the painting have been carried out. Much of the study of the painting therefore focuses on its outward aspects and its interpretations, which, on the other hand, are numerous. The self-portrait of the artist is, as mentioned, clearly more finished than the rendering of his subject; but unlike in the _Enemy_, or even in the _Portrait of a Champion_, the artist has chosen to position himself more in the background in the _Smiling Man_, thus allowing not only the model an ample amount of space but also, according to interpretations, himself the chance to showcase the reverence he holds - or has held - for the model. The portrait of the “smiling man” has been repeatedly described as that of stark juxtapositions: even though both the artist and his sitter have been depicted with wide smiles on their faces, or even laughing, and the chosen title of the work further underlines the seemingly cheerful ambience, it is in fact often seen as a testament of melancholy and loss. The artist’s palette is already notably diluted here compared to works such as the _Unknown Man_ (Cat. I) or even the _Enemy_, and although the artist still uses bright basic colours such as yellow and red, they are either rendered unusually pale or heavily tinted with a gray hue, the effect of near colourlessness following as a result despite the large areas of red. 

The composition also hints towards something more unhappy than what the facial expressions offer. The model is positioned on the front of the painting, looking outside of it (similarly to the model in the _Enemy_), but in a dynamic, twisting pose, which combined with the artist standing behind his back almost creates the impression of the model walking out of the picture - and therefore, as Zöllner (2019) states in their article, away from the painter himself. The previously cheerful ambience indeed seems to suddenly turn increasingly wistful with deeper examination of the composition and colours, and the impression of the “smiling man” departing from the painter, and the painting itself, still gets further emphasized by the artist’s pose in the picture. Not only does the artist not look at his subject in the eye but has his back turned on him as well, thus abstaining not only from eye contact but every possible way of facing the model. The sole true connection between Leclerc and his subject in the picture is the look Leclerc gives over his shoulder, extending the effect of walking away from the painting - and from the other person - to himself as well, suddenly making it prominently bilateral. This also echoes the aforementioned views of the painting being more a portrait of a relationship than that of a person, or persons, as it can indeed be seen as the artist’s way of “visualizing unattainability and, with that all too tale-telling glance back, the impossibility of parting yet still yearning” (Zöllner, 2019). 

  
\--  


**Author's Note:**

> Le Musée de L'innocence = The Museum of Innocence  
La Galerie de Damnation à la Mode = The Gallery of Fashionable Damnation  
La Forteresse de la Rivalité = The Fortress of Rivalry
> 
> The title of the work is of course modified from the saying "art imitates life". All of the scholars and studies mentioned and "quoted" in the text are purely fictional, apart from Zöllner, who is the author of the excellent catalogue raisonné of da Vinci that started this all, and whose name is thus featured in the text as a, uh, salute. But I did not quote anything of his for real. I'm not sure if mr. Zöllner would be all pleased about this, but may he never know. Thanks, Frank! The pictures are retouched but certainly not taken by me, I've just stolen them from <s>art museums</s> the internets to serve my own twisted aims. All credits and apologies to their rightful captors.
> 
> Lastly: I wonder if you've figured out what the inventory numbers in fact were by the time you're reading this note, but if/when you did, I salute you too! :)


End file.
